Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

I have another angle. Venturi is responsible for:

a) finding a scheme to fit the talent at hand

b) evaulating draft and FA talent, and being assertive with the FO about getting the correct players to fit his scheme

I\'d give him mediocre grades on both counts. Get rid of Venturi, and get a DC who knows talent, and can adapt his schemes to each opponent.

I saw Venturi say after one game that we had to play a base D with only about 3 different plays, due to players being out of position so often. That\'s his fault. His obsessive need for speed won out over picking smart players on D.

Now, the sad part. We don\'t even nibble at the fast, (while still being bright) players in free agency. Dyson, Spikes, on & on. That\'s his fault. Get rid of Venturi. I\'m not saying that he had to be a Romeo, but it seems that 31 other DCs are better than him.

I was done with Venturi, when I saw Moss 40 yrds downfield coverd by an LB.

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

Nicely put Zulu. I think I agree.

[Edited on 29/4/2005 by JKool]

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

good thread, i appreciate meaningful dialogue over issues such as this.

just a couple of cents to contribute... as pointed out you can come to some opinion of talent from empirical data and observation. i look at the individual components of what the defense was last year. factor in personnel moves (mckenzie, bockwoldt, etc.) and performance changes (fakhir improves, thomas declines, etc). then compare that unit to others in the league. when i do that, i conclude that there was certainly enough talent to be better than the 32nd ranked d. maybe not enough to be good or even avearge, but say 24th, as good as san francisco. if there was that much talent and ability in the players i am left only to think that it was for reasons other than the players the defense was THAT bad. as to the specifics, game planning, personnel utilization, motivation, schemes or play calling, etc... we do not have have that info. whatever it was though,i put a greater fault on the coaching and management. the defense was ranked 11th in 2000 and 19th in 2001. venturi was installed as defensive coordinator in 2002. there have been plenty enough poor personnel moves but nonetheless since then the defense has gone from 28th in 2002, to 18th in \'03, to 32nd last year. the players have changed but my observation that whether they have been better or worse the defensive look seems weaker.

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

I look at it like this:

Our players are over the last few years have not been all that talented. I would say that playing at an average level they are good enough to put our defense in the 16th to 20th range. With a great coach, they could be 12th or so. With a terrible coach, they could be dead last. Which do we have? :)

Both players and talent have been problems on defense. However, it seems to me that coaching has been a bigger problem.

Proof (sort of): Haslett\'s first two years in N.O., up until the final 4 game crash of 2001 at least, Ron Zook had the defense in the top half of the league and leading it in sacks both years. In 2002, the defense dropped to 22nd or 25th (I can\'t remember), with Venturi. It\'s only gotten worse, despite a lot of new players. Venturi is poo.

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

see above who...
11th--->19th--->Venturi 28th--->18th--->32nd

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

venturi needs to take a trip to the board room

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

What about continually playin cover 3 the first 12 games letting teams dink and dunk us to death, i understand with ambrose/thomas we coudn\'t always man up, but at least try a cover 2 for cryin out loud!!!!!!

Defense - Scheme or talent been the problem?
 

Sounds like a scheme problem.